In message <[log in to unmask]>, Automatic digest processor
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>I know every prehistoric archaeologist that finds anything unusual says =
>its "a ritual object" but this seems to be a well attested practice.
>
>Any thoughts?

The people who engage in the practice may have objections to it being
called 'ritual'.  They may think 'ritual practice' equates to 'religious
practice'.  They may think it equates to 'pagan practice' or 'belief in
[the old] magic'.  They may think it equates to 'primitive, irrational
behaviour' (both those being loaded and negative terms).  They may think
that 'ritual' implies 'ceremonial', and not agree that their practice
has any aspects which could be classified as 'ceremonial'.

There has been some anthropological work on ritual which uncovers the
ambiguous attitudes held towards 'superstition': I think I was reading
about this in Catherine Bell's _Ritual Theory : Ritual Practice_ (1992),
but didn't make a note of it (sorry).

It may be useful to look at the placing of 'ritual objects' as one
aspect of building orthopraxy, alongside aspects such as putting sand
into the cement, using a particular kind of timber, or giving the
building a number or a name, or a date.

With best wishes,

Pat

--
Pat Reynolds
[log in to unmask]
   "It might look a bit messy now,
                    but just you come back in 500 years time"
   (T. Pratchett)